Talk:Bandog/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Let's try again

I archived this talk page. The discussion was really not accomplishing anything, and had really just descended into snipping back and forth, seemingly carried over from some other dog-related forums. It was also a mess. Let's try and make this take-two-version a bit easier to follow. Replies to a block of text go under that block of text, with an extra : at the beginning to indent an additional time. Sign your comments using ~~~~ at the end of your paragraph. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more information.

Here are things as I see them:

• The information about bandogs relating to their first incarnation needs some sources, but doesn't seem to be contested by any editors here.
• The information on the bandogs bred by John Swinford is present in all versions of the article, but in the versions that User:SSDA creates, the information is greatly expanded.
• WP:COI is probably the most important policy to be considered here. It strongly urges editors who may have a conflict of interest to avoid making controversial edits to articles, but instead to place the information on the articles' talk pages and allowing editors without the outside interests to incorporate it into the article itself.

I believe that User:SSDA has a significant conflict of interest. Whether his outside interest is commercial or not, the appearance of this COI serves to cast doubt on the neutrality of his edits. So, my solution to this is to ask User:SSDA to stop editing the article and instead place information he believes to be relevant here on this talk page. I also ask that the other users who are editing the article ensure that they are carefully following WP:NPOV in including information. A mention of the SSDA in the article is probably in order, but it's important that this information cite sources which are not published by the SSDA or on their web site the web site of a related kennel.

Wikipedia has a policy called "assume good faith", and I think we all need to do that here. I really feel that User:SSDA's edits are attempts at improving Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I think that it's difficult for him to separate his desire to discuss his version of this breed of dog from what is best for an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia's information needs to be verifiable and from reliable sources, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of facts, and simply being true doesn't make something worth including in an article.

Finally, let's please keep things on this talk page orderly and civil.

Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Addressing "Assuming Good Faith I would like to state I appreciate WP "assume good faith" policy and would like to address this. I am definately only interested in bringing in correct information that is an improvement to wikipedia. I do not find it necessary to mention my name or the name of my kennel. I am only interested in seeing two components added...1. an accurate reporting of Swinford's work, and 2. the mentioning of a breed specific organization as is done on nearly EVERY wikipedia dog site should people have a desire to contact the SSDA. Again, the SSDA does not make money on registering bandogs. It is a club/assocation that only registers dogs for the purpose of tracking pedigrees of working class bandog prospects. There is no COI concern as mentioning the various breed clubs are typical practices on WP.

If other editors choose to add this information, provided it is well-sourced, then it may be acceptable. Your obvious conflict of interest prevents you from making this edit. I doubt that a link to your (or anyone's) club's web site will be okay, however. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If people have a desire to contact the SSDA, that's what Google is for. kmccoy (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that every dog breed on wikipedia (at least every breed I typed in to view for comparison reasons) provides both a list and links to the various breed specific associations as they pertain to the topic. Suggesting the Bandog breed should be any different simply isn't consistent with WP's current actions...but feel free to check this for yourself if you so wish. Therefore, I hope you or the consensus reconsiders your opinion.SSDA71.195.158.57 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, what about the opposing veiw. They too should be required to comply to the "assume good faith" policy. By revealing Barbara also owns a website called "Swine turd," which is visible if you click on her bandog blog. http://swineturd.blogspot.com/. Also I would like to remind the WP staff that the opposing group has not practiced "good faith" in this discussin by removing my referrences in this discussion forum about Swinford's work (The July-August, 1972 issue of The Sporting Dog Journal by Jack Kelly as well as the books The World of Fighting Dogs by Carl Semencic and Gladiator Dogs also by Carl Semencic). Is this "good faith." They have not been able to provide a single documented referrence to a counter view. They have also made many personal attacks towards me, which have nothing to do with the SSDA...which again is not "good faith." I hope these thoughts are considered in WP decision.

I need to make it clear that I've never edited this article, nor do I have any intention of it. I'm not in any particular "camp" except what is best for the bandog article. 24.45.232.201 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

This isn't a kindergarten dispute of "he started it!" "no, he started it!". We're writing an encyclopedia here. Go play out your dramas elsewhere. I'm starting to lose my patience with the inability of people to focus on the task at hand. kmccoy (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather not see the drama anywhere. I only point out the above because of the COI and "assume good faith" policies you brought up. I hope the standards of behavior would go both ways...as clearly by viewing objectively one can see their motive isn't based upon history or facts...and is relative to both the COI and the "Assume good faith" policies. This should be considered when WP makes their decision on this matter. I am only trying to help you with your decision by providing the rest of the story on what is really going on here. What I provided about the Swinford Bandogs and the SSDA has clearly has been facts and history, and not personal nonsense. This too should be noted by WP.SSDA71.195.158.57 21:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you provided the information that the person you continually slander has not said anything negative about you, never edited this article, probably never even read the article, but somehow manages to get dragged into this? There is no "camp". 24.45.232.201 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

For fairness, I have removed Robinson's references to people that have no connection to the article in dispute. 71.84.116.43 19:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ken. I apologize for this. You are doing a great job, and I know this is probably unpleasant for you. I've made my points, and I don't want to keep coming back here to defend anything. I've intentionally not addressed points that were made because they were taking away from the topic at a hand. 24.45.232.201 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Barbara

How is it "fair" for you to remove my comments that illustrate Barbara's subjective COI opinion...since she trains with a person in conflict with the SSDA...a person that is a convicted felon and also convicted for animal cruelty? That...shows her COI. Therefore, being her commments are 'opinions' and that my comments are documentable and referrence...it is OBVIOUS what should be reported in an encyclopedia. Now...if WP is interested in truth...in referrences...in history...than the answer is clear on what decision to make. If they are interested in conforming to nonsense and spam...well, that will be on them. Time will tell what decision they come to. I hope for the sake of truth, history, and EVIDENCE (referrences) they will make the right choice.SSDA71.195.158.57 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You claim false accusations were made against you then try and drag in people who have nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is another reason why you should not be allowed to edit the bandog article. People want an accurate history not the fairy tale you want to present. No one has a vested interest in this but you. 71.84.116.43 22:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The people I spoke of have plenty to do with the topic at hand. Which is also why I provide referrences to my statements (for confirmation of accuracy). Why people can't simply stick to the facts, history, and accurate documentation based upon pubished referrences I don't konw...but I have done that. I would expect others to do the same. SSDA71.195.158.57 23:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is another fable on your part. They don't care about you, your program or your registry. Again, all you're doing is slinging mud to divert from you being the only one with a COI.71.84.116.43 01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. My only interest is that this article is fair and balanced and representative of the bandog community on the whole. 24.45.232.201 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Barbara

Wouldn't "representative of the bandog community on the whole" include the WHOLE bandog community? The SSDA is the largest bandog specific registry and assocation out there, if not the only one. Also, if you were interested in a "fair" and "balanced" representation and had "no conflict of interest" why would you have a "Swine turd" board?

Barbara, it is time we move forward and let the real history and modern development of these dogs be represented as they truly are and as they have truly been published.SSDA71.195.158.57 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You demonstrate time and again that you only care about your version of history by your continued attempts to shout down the truth.71.84.116.43 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, let me ask you a couple of VERY SIMPLE questions then. Why have I been able to provide referrences to documented and published text that supports my claim, mean while you have not been able to provide a single bit of published to a conflicting view? Not a single one.SSDA71.195.158.57 01:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've still not come close to proving your claims about Swinford. There HAVE been opposing views and they've been referenced. This, in addition to COI, is why you're unsuitable to edit the article because you refuse to acknowledge anything other that what fits into your skewed version of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.116.43 (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What claims have I made? I simply provided referrences to Swinford's work and his influence. No referrences have been sited to dispute any of my claims. Of course, you are free to do so now if you can...but you can't. There are no published referrences that dispute his work or his influence.SSDA71.195.158.57 03:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration,

SSDA71.195.158.57 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Solution from Barbara

Allow information on the history of Swinford to be included in the article, as it is a topic some people are interested in, but forbid inclusion of the SSDA because they are a modern breeder with commercial interests which is a violation of Wikipedia standards. Including a breeder who uses the name of a deceased breeder would be no different than me, or anyone for that matter, deciding I'm going to be a breeder, and because I respect Joe Lucero's work, naming my breeding project Lucero bandogs, thus attaching my efforts to someone who's made a name for himself. Highly unethical. Then to further lend credibility to a project that's accomplished nothing, carefully orchestrate a loophole (the SSDA) to get my efforts recognized on sites that ban commercial interest links, when all else fails to get recognition by the real experts in the field. Every reader is a perspective puppy buyer.

Before Mr. Robinson persists in dragging people who are irrelevant to the topic, controversial 'facts' about same without substantiated proof, lets keep this about the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the ethics of including the SSDA, an organization with commercial interests, on Wikipedia and a proposed solution to the matter without losing the reader in thousands of words that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

24.45.232.201 16:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Barbara

It should be noted that a significant number of the "Lucero" dogs were not bred by Lucero...including his most famous dog "Lucero's Jaws." Jaws happened to be bred by a cop in LA...and was purchased by Lucero. The biggest difference between Lucero's dogs and Swinfords are...Swinford used game stock APBT and English Mastiff...and produced his own stock. Lucero often purchased APBT/Am Staff x Neapolitans/Cane Corsos and some times bred these dogs back to Neapolitans. Lucero has accomplished a lot with his dogs though and IMO he should be mentioned on the Wikipedia site IF WP is going to mention the work of breeders. However, if they do that they most certainly should include an accurate description of each (Swinford's work and Lucero's work).SSDA71.195.158.57 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Barbara's assessment, only Mr. Robinson has a Financial and Vested interest in this topic; be it SSDA or Chimera Kennels, as he is the only one with a commercial web site referenced and/or linked with the purpose of SELLING a product (puppies). He has for many years combined them as one in the same. The action to separate them is mute as they are and will be owned by the same individual with a business interest in any and all information posted. Furthermore Mr. Robinson has been caught in several serious Embellishments and untruths of material facts, this lends to the credibility issue of the responsibility of fair and accurate editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.113 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not true at all...which is probably why your don't sign your comment. I wouldn't be surprised if it is a comment made by an IP proxy server as is frequently done on message forums. The fact is Barbara and others with opposing views have a COI because they have issues with the SSDA since the SSDA does not support those who have been convicted of felony behavior...because it is a law abiding organization...but none of this changes the fact that the SSDA is only a club association dedicated to the development of the breed, nor does it change the fact that the SSDA does not make money on registration forms. EVERY breed on wikipedia lists breed clubs and organizations. The Bandog shouldn't be any different. And, who better to do this than someone who has access to the true history and that has done the research?And, being Barbara has posted a link to this discussion on the bandog banter (anti-SSDA group which supports convicted animal abusers), of course posts have been made that "concur" with her opinion. The thing here to notice though is my comments are not made on opinion, but upon sited documentable referrences. SSDA71.195.158.57 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A Better Solution

Why not create a new Wikipedia page about the Swinford Bandog and on that page include the information about the SSDA instead on the current "Bandog" page. On the current page, we could create a "relative topic" link to go to a new page on WP about the "Swinford Bandog." On that page, more information can be reported about how the SSDA is making efforts to recreate and preserve Swinford's work and such...and the current Bandog page can be left as is by only briefly mentioning Swinford's work as it is now. The site would not mention any kennels, but only go into details about Swinford's work and the work of the SSDA in general.

Besides, some effort needs to be made anyway to distinguish the current Swinford from the general Bandog as well as distinguishing between the "old history" from "modern history" of the bandog as the two really have very little in common besides a name (also varifiable by documentable text referrences). For one, Bandogs of old were did not contain APBT influence...and while some Bandogs today do others do not. There is variation there that the Swinford type does not have as all Swinford types do have APBT. Next, Bandogs today are not used to catch pouchers...none of them. Bandogs of old originated in England. Today modern general type "bandogs" are produced around the world, while the "Swinford" type bandogs originated in the US. And, a list of other variations too exist...but due to limited time I will save further explaination of the differences for a new page should one decide to be created. This is just one more possible solution. SSDA71.195.158.57 01:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your documentation has been shown to have major flaws. The problem isn't mentioning Swinford but your insistence on inflating what he did. Your solution is merely another attempt at self promotion.71.84.116.43 02:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that YOUR breeding of Mix breed mutts has NOTHING to do with the past other than your distorted perseption of history. Anything on that page woule be YOUR proven wrong perseption of reality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.113 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sections removed

I removed the entire section of back and forth between SSDA and Barbara. How can I make it more clear that your bickering dispute is not to be taken here? The amount of personal attacks and mudslinging by each side was disgusting. Please go view WP:AGF and WP:NPA.

Back to writing an encyclopedia. Keep the other crap on whatever other forums this battle is waged on. kmccoy (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'm just continuing to remove sections that don't relate to how to improve the article at hand. Wikipedia is not the place to play out this ongoing dispute about SSDA or any other breeder and their motives and history. kmccoy (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ken, Thank you for removing the false accusations and undocumentable and irrelivant statements made by Barbara. When viewing this discussion, I hope you at least realize I have not attacked the opposing party, but only defended myself from there attacks. You might view that as trivial, but personally...I think it is very important to notice when it comes to addressing the policy of "assuming good faith." That being said, I understand your decision...and agree with it...which is why I asked those comments be removed in the first place. I am intersted in sticking to the topic at hand about the breed. That is why my comments have been about the history, truth, and publications...except when targetted.SSDA71.195.158.57 21:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lee, you've done nothing but attack anyone you can to silence people because they say what you don't want known, for reasons I can't even conceive. You think that when someone disagrees with your version of Swinford, that they're attacking you. The fact that you have a commercial interest in this topic is reason for your COI, not because anyone is in any particular "camp". 24.45.232.201 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Barbara

Barbara, correct me if I am wrong...but am I not the only one here that has actually provided ANY documentable and published information about modern bandogs that dates to back to 1972 and 1984. I am not the one attacking people here Barbara. I posted facts and provided referrence to these facts. You however have not provided a single document that has been published on modern bandogs. And, you have also provided links to things such as "Swine turd" board that you just so happen to create. The SSDA is not a "commerical" operation or business. It is a breed club...a breed specific association that registers dogs only to track pedigrees of working class bandogs...and it is the only organization for bandogs that does this by requiring proof of working ability. These are simply observations that no one here can question. Not you, not the WP staff, no one. If the SSDA gets WP recognition, great. It should. If not, well...than it would be my opinion that your spam has only been a temporary inconvenience to the Bandog breed. I am the only one here that has provided documented referrences and am also the only one professionally educated in Animal Sciences...and also make my living as a teacher...and NOT from the SSDA.SSDA

You are wrong. Other documentation has been supplied. You have a supplemental income selling dogs and promoting the SSDA. You again show your only interest is in self promotion by mentioning a degree which is irrelevant to the topic at hand.71.84.116.43 02:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please site the "other documentation." It does not exist...and that is why you won't site it as a referrence. You can't. Of course, you are free to prove me wrong if you could do so. But you can't. No publication states any contradicting view to the published referrences I sited. That is a fact. Second, my degree is very relavent. It is in Animal Sciences. Domesticated animals, including companion animals, are under the department of animal sciences...and this is how I originally became familiar with Swinford's work. Perhaps you forgot, he was a vet that created his version of the breed in the 1960's. I do not have any income generated by the SSDA...as it does not make money from the registration forms. It is a club association, not a business. SSDA71.195.158.57 03:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Documented referrences to Swinford's work

In the July-August 1972 issue of the Sporting Dog Journal, Jack Kelly wrote up a brief story about Swinfords dogs, which was the "cover story" of that issue. Some 30+ years later, Kelly again wrote a brief article of Swinford's work in a book. In both cases, Jack Kelly acknowledges the use of the English Mastiff being bred to game APBT dogs. In his book, Mr. Kelly states, "John was intent on establishing his very own breed of dog by crossing his English Mastiff to an American Pit Bull Terrier." In the 1972 July-August issue of the SDJ, Mr. Kelly gives referrence to the English Mastiff, the APBT, and also refers to some of the other foundation breeds used. It is in this journal that Mr. Kelly states, "John's ideas of breeding these dogs was to try and take the desirable qualities of each breed and through selective breeding to produce an all-purpose guard dog that was a game fighting dog." Mr. Kelly also gave reference to Swinford to the fact that even though Swinford himself did not keep pit dogs, he did love all dogs. He further described Swinford as a person who was always willing to offer his services to do whatever he could as a veterinarian for various dogs and dog clubs.

In The World of Fighting Dogs (1984, TFH publishing) and also in Gladitor Dogs (also TFH publishing), Carl Semencic gives extensive referrence to Swinford's dogs being developed as guard dogs, and how they influence other bandog programs.SSDA71.195.158.57 21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It has to be mentioned Carl Semenic as a credible source is debatable in the dog community. Many regard the books as poor sources of information but with nice pictures. Robinson claims that is opinion but its no different than his opinion that Semenic's books are good sources. Add to that a mention in a fighting dog journal does not add any weight to the claim that Swinford developed the modern bandog, that he's had a major influence on breeders all over the world or that his program had any long term success. There are conflicting reports on that from people that were there. One being on like the name or not, http://swineturd.blogspot.com/ and other articles on Barbara's site echo the same and have other sources. None of the people who wrote any of that have a vested interest in Swinford as Robinson does, they are merely writing about history. Instead of seeking out ALL sources of information, Robinson is only gleaning from what supports his view. 71.84.116.43 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ONE FINE EXAMPLE OF SWINFORD'S work. Notice it is from one of the sources that Lee, SSDA, Chimera Kennels Touts so and NO REVERENCE of the Fore Mentioned! In FACT Mr. Lieberman mentions one of the Accused group out to get him! This is the kind of HISTORICAL information that bellongs on Wiki!

Bandogges History A Breed In Progress by: Martin J. Leiberman In the middle nineteen sixties John Bayard Swinford, VMD. Began crossing American Pit Bull Terriers with English Mastiffs. I had a similar ideology and we eventually introduced by a mutual acquaintance. John and I remained friendly for over three years. During that time we combined ideas and collaborated on a number of breed specific issues. Our goal was to breed a large super Mastiff, "a dog fearing nothing made of flesh." Our work began by crossing English Mastiffs with Pit Bulls. However, over time it became apparent that garnering English Mastiffs for this project was increasingly difficult. We needed to bring in an infusion of outside blood. We looked at our options and came up with the Italian Bull Dog, an ancient European Mastiff.

We liked the primitive over done appearance of the dog. We liked the natural suspicion exhibited by the breed. In addition, we liked the hard bonding characteristic of the breed. We didn't like the differential in skull size between the b###hes and dogs. We also had a problem with the breed's lack of (prominent) dentition. Plus, many of the Italian Bull Dog b###hes have a condition called cat face. These dogs lack length of muzzle (often times) impedes endurance and the ability to bite. The late Luigi Forina bred Italian Bull dogs, as they were affectionately called in those days. That was well before folks called them Neapolitan Mastiffs. Senior Forino lived on Logan Street in Brooklyn, not far from the queen's border. Luigi, allowed us to harvest blood from a well-made 240-pound stud dog. This blood was crossed back into our (existing) brood b###hes.

We now had the fresh blood our project needed. The impact of the hybrid-vigor factor surfaced immediately. Without question we had created a superior mastiff. This being the first responsibility of the Bandogge project. Conversely, we also created an inferior American Pit Bull Terrier. However, the goal of the Bandogge breeder should not be to improve the Pit Bull Terrier, as this would prove to be futile. However, to improve the mastiff, with their many faults would be a reasonable challenge. Our primary focus would be to improve motor skills, to thicken nerves and capture a higher degree of gameness. One must never loose sight of an important historical fact. It took three hundred years to create the perfect bull and terrier cross. Having said this, it is also safe to assume the larger the dog the longer the journey to perfection.

One must view the Bandogge as an ongoing work in progress of a breed in progress. It is my opinion that our first generation breeding produced pups that were vastly superior to their Mastiff parents. This is not arrogance, but fact. Ergo, I am comfortable stating that the first segment of our genetic journey was a success. The breeding that followed continued to demonstrate reasonable gains. John Swinford died in the fall of 1972. I continued to breed and promote our project well into the next decade. I guess I became distracted by responsibility. I have not put pups on the ground for many years. In truth, I no longer have the temperament to deal with the voluminous numbers of un-coachable puppy buyers. Today's breeding environment has endless options. The modern breeder of Bandogges has a wealth of outside blood to infuse into his or her kennel. Rare breeds are no longer rare! The world has become smaller, more transparent and less mysterious.

In terms of the Bandogge project, I feel the best has yet to come! It is nice to see young people like Mario and Vicki Governale realize the true potential of the Bandogge. More importantly they are willing to run with the torch, and tackle (endless daily) kennel chores. Mario and Vicki own the Thunder Dome facility. The kennel is spacious, the atmosphere is feral and clean. I am pleased that folks like Mario and Vicki are so passionate about the development of the Bandogge. I am certain it would please John Swinford as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.113 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The above only confirms Swinford bred bandogs but does not support Robinson's exaggerated claims about his program. There is no "group" out to get Robinson they merely recognize that he has a vested interest in the SSDA and should not be allowed to use Wikipedia to promote it. 71.84.116.43 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You speak too soon, again without knowing. That article you presented was written prior to the SSDA's creation. It just so turns out that Martin Lieberman is the acting president of the SSDA...and has been so since its creation. Thank you for the support (although it was made unknowingly). SSDA71.195.158.57 00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

As stated, the article proves none of your pie in the sky claims and this is the first time you have mentioned Mr. Lieberman being president of the SSDA. The address on the registry is also your address in Brandon. Your claims of no COI are demonstrably false. Again, it speaks to your lack of suitability to edit the bandog article. 71.84.116.43 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is not the first time. You just haven't done the research. If you view the "Swinford Bandog" site (Origin of the Swinford and the SSDA) you would know this. I will quote it for you here in itallics..."If you obtain a copy of Semencic's book, you can see on the acknowledgment's page the names Martin Lieberman and Kevin Covas. Martin, Kevin, and I have discussed the history of these dogs (and bow hunting) on many occasions. Martin Lieberman was very familiar with Swinford's work and for a number of years was partner with Swinford in the development of the original Swinford dogs. Mr. Lieberman's involvement included not only keeping various Swinford type dogs and arranging various Swinford type breedings, but he also wrote the original Swinford breed standard for John Swinford. This original standard has since been revised by the Swinford Sporting Dog Association (SSDA) and adopted as the Swinford breed standard. Since Mr. Lieberman was personally and closely involved in the Swinford project, we believe him to be today's leading authority of the original Swinford project. For this reason, Mr. Lieberman has been the acting president of the SSDA since its creation. SSDA71.195.158.57 03:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(see comments below)

I ask then why Mr. Lieberman doesn't make ANY mention of the SSDA in this article? IN FACT he mentions quite clearly another Bandog breeder you have had Ill words with in the past "(the group)". I believe the article to stand on it's own merits for what it is and propose this as just another one of the attemps to HIJACK history as it was! Again more to the Character of Mr. Harold Lee Robinson! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.113 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read so well. Do you not know what "prior to the SSDA's creation" means? How can he mention the SSDA in that article that didn't exist at that time? SSDA01:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IF, as you say, the article was written BEFORE the SSDA the whay do YOU have to do with it? Like written before, let it stand on it's own! AGAIN your reaction to this article lends twoards you propensity of revisionist history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.245.113 (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)